BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 165 of 2019
Date of Institution : 08.04.2019.
Date of Decision : 16.10.2019.
M/s Om Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its proprietor Smt. Saroj Lamba.
……Complainant.
Versus.
State Bank of India, Anaj Mandi, Sirsa Branch, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that State Bank of Patiala has now been amalgamated with State Bank of India. That in 2009, the complainant had availed a C.C. loan facility from the erstwhile State Bank of Patiala, Sirsa branch to the tune of Rs.twenty lacs. On 31.3.2017, the said CC limit account of complainant was taken over by the IDBI Bank Ltd. and the outstanding amount in the above CC loan account of complainant was transferred by IDBI Bank Ltd. with the op through NEFT system. It is further averred that now the complainant obtained its statement of account from the op bank and then came to know that on 31.3.2017, a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- has been debited in its account as closure charges. Besides this amount, the following amounts have been further debited in its account in several heads:-
Sr. No. Date Description of charges Amount
- 31.3.2017 Account keeping charges 630-00
- 10.3.2017 Account keeping charges 630-00
- 10.3.2017 Inspection charges 15,800-00
- 31.1.2017 OD PNLTY Int. TXN 3932-13
- 7.1.2017 Advocate fee TFR 2000-00
- 30.11.2016 Od PNLTY Int TXN 642-36
- 2.11.2016 Cash Handling charges 98-00
- 31.10.2016 OD NLTY Int. TXN 639-21
- 24.10.2016 Processing Fee- Others 20,000
- 24.10.2016 Pro Char FR 6667-00
- 1.10.2016 Cash Handling Charges 49-00
- 30.9.2016 OD PNLTY Int TXN 3208-45
- 30.9.2016 Cash Handling charges 58-00
- 27.9.2016 Cash Handling charges 58-00
- 3.9.2016 Cash Handling charges 98-00
- 31.8.2016 Od PNLTY Int. TXN 5292-18
- 31.7.2016 OD PNLTY Int. TXN 10,207-69
- 30.7.2016 Cash Handling charges 59-00
- 6.7.2016 Cash Handling charges 58-00
- 5.7.2016 Cash Handling charges 58-00
- 5.7.2016 Cash Handling charges 60-00
- 30.6.2016 OD PNLTY Int. TXN 4545-07
- 28.6.2016 Non Home Branch Cash Dep 140-00
- 27.6.2016 Cash Handling Charges 46-00
- 18.6.2016 Cash Handling charges 58-00
- 2.6.2016 Cash Handling charges 58-00
- 31.5.2016 OD PNLTY Int TXN 526-41
- 18.5.2016 Non Home Branch Cash Dep 100-00
- 5.5.2016 Non Home Branch Cash Dep 51-00
- 30.4.2016 OD PNLTY Int TXN 524-00
- 29.4.2016 Valuation charges 3000-00
- 29.4.2016 None Home Branch Cash Dep100-00
- 31.3.2016 Commitment charges 1500-92
- 31.3.2016 OD PNLTY Int TXN 1327-61
- 28.3.2016 Pro Rata Processing Charges 8334-00
- 28.3.2016 Processing Fee – Others 20,000
- 13.3.2016 Account Keeping charges 630-00
- 12.3.2016 Inspection charges 15,750-00
- 31.1.2016 OD PNLTY Int TXN 1849-25 Total 1,28,785-28
It is further averred that all the above amounts have been debited in the account of complainant illegally, unlawfully and unauthorisedly, whereas, the complainant was not liable to pay these amounts to the bank and the bank is not entitled to receive/ recover these amounts from the complainant. In this manner, the op bank has been indulged in unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to refund of the above amounts from the bank alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of recovery of the same till realization of the same. That the op by its act and conduct has committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and has caused harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is made clear that answering op has recovered the outstanding amount from the complainant as per norms of the bank as well as per RBI guidelines. Prior to settling the amount, the complainant has herself approached the answering op with the request that she wants to take over her account with another bank and showed her willingness to deposit the entire outstanding amount. Accordingly, the answering op calculated the outstanding amount and gave her statement of account showing total outstanding amount. At the same time, the complainant herself assured the answering op that since she had approached to IDBI Bank Ltd. to take over her loan account and the op shall receive the amount from said amount. As per statement of account given by op, IDBI Bank has transferred the amount to the op bank in the loan account of complainant. After receipt of amount, the op has closed the loan account of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is no more consumer of the answering op. The complainant herself has deposited the outstanding amount in her loan account, hence she is not entitled to any refund thereof alongwith any interest. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.C1 in which she has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. She has also produced copy of head wise detail of bank charges Ex.C2, copy of detail of bank charges Ex.C3, copy of detail of interest charged Ex.C4, copy of head wise detail of bank charges Ex.C5, copies of statements of account Ex.C6 to Ex.C10, legal notice Ex.C11 and postal receipt Ex.C12. On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. Harpreet Singh, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the written statement. Op has also furnished copy of guidelines Ex.R2.
6. During course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that op has charged Rs.1,15,000/- as pre-payment charges which is illegal and arbitrary and same is liable to refunded. On the other hand, op has relied upon the guidelines of bank Ex.R2 by which op is entitled to charge 2% on pre-payment charges.
7. During the course of arguments, it has been found that originally complainant was holding cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.twenty lacs, but however, same was enhanced and loan of State Bank of India was taken over by IDBI Bank Ltd. on 31.3.2017 and outstanding amount was paid directly to SBI by said Bank. The perusal of copy of statement of account Ex.C10 reveals that on 31.3.2017, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was transferred from IDBI Bank limited in the loan account of complainant maintained in SBI by way of RTGS meaning thereby that on the date of taking over of loan, there was outstanding of more than Rs.fifty lacs. So, it appears that gross value of the transaction is more than Rs. fifty lacs, whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is only to the extent of Rs. twenty lacs. As such, present complaint does not appear to be maintainable before this Forum and same is barred by jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case reported as I (2017 CPJ 1 (NC) titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
8. In view of the above, present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, but however, complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of law/ authority and the period during which this complaint remained pending before this Forum may be excluded while calculating the period of limitation as per law. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:16.10.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
